CBS: You know, Alito was right

posted at 3:35 pm on January 29, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford doesn’t go quite that far, but she gets pretty close when she admits at the end that Barack Obama “overstated” the impact of Citizens United v FEC. Well … yeah. Katie Couric and Crawford mull over the big takeaway moment from the State of the Union speech, focusing far more on the tradition of stoic non-response of Supreme Court justices during SOTU speeches than the tradition of refraining from attacking the justices in the speech itself. Even at that, Couric notes that this is the most brazen attack by a President against the Court since FDR:

Not bad, and certainly not the worst response to the kerfuffle. Believe it or not, the Huffington Post did better, at least on the legal question. And if you don’t like the fact that the Court has gotten political, Professor Bainbridge says that maybe the solution to it would be to have a court filled with strict constructionists. (via Instapundit)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Right now people still respect the Supreme Court in a way that other federal institutions, such as Congress & the Presidency aren’t. Sure we may grumble about a decision here and there, but at the end of the day we think the Justices are honest, hard working types.

I just wonder if it’s part of Dear Liar’s strategy to draw the Court into the political mud, to delegitimatize it to the point where we won’t look to the Court or its opinions when He goes for the power grab.

Gawd I hate going paranoid. But there’s something about The Whine that wasn’t in bill Clinton that bring this out in me.

“Inappropriate” my aunt fanny. I think it inappropriate to invite the Justices to informally attend a meeting of the Congress and the President, and then demand they show no reaction at all, even if they are addressed by the speaker. The Supreme Court had no institutional role to play in the State of the Union. If their presence misleads the public on that point, they should unanimously decline to appear henceforth.

The CBS reporter says in one breath that Obama “overstated” the ruling but then that he really, really didn’t like the Supreme Court decision… Huh? Meaning his dislike somehow warrants the lie? It’s all right to lie about it because he didn’t like it, and this is the emotional context we need to know the full story? This is how these people think, this is the logical discipline and moral coherence they bring to a news story.

Why the sudden slew of attacks on the Supreme Court, specifically Justices Alito and Roberts, by leading Democrats?

The decision in the Citizens United case, which struck down on First Amendment grounds some legislative restrictions on campaign speech by corporations, is the excuse but not the reason.

The Citizens United decision is not a clear victory for either political party, since corporate spending will be matched if not exceeded by union spending, and as we have seen in the health care debate, large corporate interests often support Obama’s agenda. Nonetheless, Pat Leahy (D-Vt) has declared the decision the “most partisan decision since Bush v. Gore.”

Yet numerous Democratic leaders, not just Obama, are on the offensive against Alito and Roberts, claiming that they “misled” Congress during their confirmation proceedings as to whether they would respect case precedent.

This assertion is patently false. Neither nominee (nor any other nominee in history) ever commits to never overturning an incorrect prior decision of the Court. Many of the most historic Supreme Court decisions, such as Brown v. Bd. of Education, overturned longstanding precedent.

So why the anger and fury?

Let me suggest it has something to do with likelihood that Justice Stevens will be retiring at the end of this term. Democrats are attempting to paint Alito and Stevens Roberts as extremists who misled Congress in order to pressure Obama to pick an activist liberal justice to replace Stevens, and then to justify confirmation.

The argument will go that since Alito and Roberts are activist on the right, there must be an activist on the left appointed as a counterbalance.

There is method to Democrats’ madness in attacking the Citizens United decision and in demonizing Alito and Roberts. But it’s still madness.

and

It was more than bad form. It was a deliberate attempt by Obama to intimidate the Court. A coach yells at the referee not out of an expectation that the completed call will be changed, but in the hope of influencing the next call.

I understand that people feel they must respect the office of the president. But this president has taken politics to a new low and lying to an art form. He has lost the respect due his office. Thus those in his cross hairs and in this presence need to be much more expressive in their disdain for this trash.

Have people not noticed that there seem to be good old American institutions under attack on a weekly basis, most notably lately BANKS and now the SUPREME COURT? Hmmmm.

Marcus on January 29, 2010 at 3:47 PM

Yip, and expect them to continue. I just heard on the radio…I think Hannity said it, or the news. I wasn’t paying that close attention to who it was, but they said Dems are going to up attacks on Republicans, for their opposition positions. That Obama extended his hand at their convention in Delaware, so that proves he’s bipartisan. When I heard earlier, that all Obama did was scold, chastize, and berate the Republicans there.

I think they all looked rather angry, and disgusted. The SOTU was not the time, nor the place for what Obama did, and we were all well aware of his opinion hours after the ruling. He expressed it to the press. He deliberately placed them in the line of fire, as if to say…I AM THE MAN, and you will do MY bidding. Got it?

It was disgusting, and absurd, and so beneath any President. He ought to be ashamed, and embarrassed, but just like a village idiot, Obama could scratch is bare behind in public, and not think anything of it.

The difference between the FDR examples and this is television. America didn’t see Roosevelt sneering at a group of dignified, respectful judges (which he didn’t do, by the way, as his tone/words were much more…presidential). In this case, Obama just came off as a complete jerk. Voters won’t like it. They won’t like it at all.

I understand that people feel they must respect the office of the president. But this president has taken politics to a new low and lying to an art form. He has lost the respect due his office. Thus those in his cross hairs and in this presence need to be much more expressive in their disdain for this trash.

davidcaskey on January 29, 2010 at 3:59 PM

Actually, I’d have no problem if Congress and the Supreme Court engaged in a lively response to the President’s SOTU comments, whoever that Pres might be. I think Presidents hide behind the majesty and respect for the office, and increasingly use that to avoid the consequences of their actions and statements.

If a President is wrong, why can’t we say he’s wrong, on the spot? I respect the office, but allowing errors to stand uncorrected does a disservice to the American people.

I think they all looked rather angry, and disgusted. The SOTU was not the time, nor the place for what Obama did, and we were all well aware of his opinion hours after the ruling. He expressed it to the press. He deliberately placed them in the line of fire, as if to say…I AM THE MAN, and you will do MY bidding. Got it?

capejasmine on January 29, 2010 at 4:02 PM

Heck, his behavior could cause some of the lefty justices to rethink their stances.

Justice Sam Alito
J-S-A = Just Super Awesome!!!!!
The real beauty of the remark was it was a candid spot on reaction -he has more class in his little finger than can be found on the entire grounds of the white house (ss excepted)

Let me suggest it has something to do with likelihood that Justice Stevens will be retiring at the end of this term. Democrats are attempting to paint Alito and Stevens Roberts as extremists who misled Congress in order to pressure Obama to pick an activist liberal justice to replace Stevens, and then to justify confirmation.

-It looks like Stevens will retire shortly. The Dems have 59 votes and there are several moderate GOPers in the Senate who’ll vote to confirm anyone with a fairly good legal resume/judicial history unless s/he is a unguided-missle-type total flaming liberal with a paper trail a mile long showing s/he has no desire to accurately understand or apply the law. The Legal Insurrection is hyperventilating.

I believe this was a scripted moment. If you watch the tape closely, as soon as Obama starts his sentence you can see Harry Reid nudging Durbin with his elbow, as in “get ready”. Schumer looks directly at Alito to watch his reaction, and they eagerly leap to their feet and applaud. If it weren’t planned ahead, do you think they would all be so quick to jump to their feet? I would think maybe a few of them would hesitate and think maybe this is not the right thing to do.

-It looks like Stevens will retire shortly. The Dems have 59 votes and there are several moderate GOPers in the Senate who’ll vote to confirm anyone with a fairly good legal resume/judicial history unless s/he is a unguided-missle-type total flaming liberal with a paper trail a mile long showing s/he has no desire to accurately understand or apply the law. The Legal Insurrection is hyperventilating.

The dumbest thing about Obama’s attack was that Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion. He is still considered the only real swing vote on the Court, and attacking one of his most important opinions is not going to help the liberal side win him over in future cases.

Ted Olson argued this case BTW. He is the winningest Supreme Court lawyer alive. And by all accounts he ran rings around the Solicitor in the arguments. That may be one reason why Obama is mad. His handpicked affirmative-action Solicitor blew the case. Plenty of people warned that she was unqualified for the job.

He says he was was ready to retire around the middle of this season, which probably coincides with a concussion requiring him to sit at least one game.

In addition to that, his recent game against the Saints left him feeling worse than he’d ever felt the morning after a football game.

He probably feels that the concussion during the middle of the season and the “bruised chest” he got against the Saints in the playoffs two weeks ago were signs that he better leave before he gets permanently messed up.

If we could turn back the clock to see Eisenhower when he behaved in the same manner in his STOTU address when the court desegregation ruling came down from the Warren Court. The point is that he didn’t. Obama was in bad form.

Obama and the Dems know that all is lost. They are going to be waylaid this November and they are desperate to keep it from happening. But the actions they take only ensures that the whipping will be thorough. Obama had a brief opportunity to pivot, even to pseudo-pivot. He blew it, and this opportunity will not come again. He’s a lame duck, one term mediocrity.

Obama was a nice enough lecturer and all, but doesn’t it seem a bit strange that with absolutely no record of scholarship to his name, he could get a tenure track post at a place like Chicago.

Posted by Sam | March 28, 2008 11:11 AM

This blog is taken from this article regarding Obama’s “Professor” title.
I think it is a very relevant question, given that I have yet to hear of ANY published, Const. scholarship provided by our POTUS.
Where is his analyses on the Constitution that he is a ‘scholar’ on?
I would really love for him to produce some published scholarly opinions on this fine document.
I am personally really sick & tired of BO talking out of his butt regarding our founding document.
He opens his mouth & says basically the opposite of what holds true.
I wish (I know it’s a pipe dream) that the media would really hound him on his Constitutional expert opinion, complete with sources for those opinions.
This is what affirmative action has given us, folks.
And no one will take the receivers of affirmative action jobs to task for their knowledge bcs we don’t want to be accused as being racist or sexist.
Ugh.

And if the President is going to go after the Supreme Court Ruling in a SOTU address, he’s damn lucky Alito didn’t stand up and kick his ass.PappaMac on January 29, 2010 at 4:18 PM

PappaMac, I think Obama was damn lucky the quick tempered Justice Scalia wasn’t there that night. Obama might have gotten the Italian salute…that thing with fingers flipping out from under the chin followed by that bent elbow thing!

Why does Barry hate Alito? Because the EEEEEEVIL BOOOOOOSH put him on SCOTUS.

While we’re at it, if BozObama the Con Lawyer wants to talk about foreign campaign donations, why doesn’t somebody sue Obama under the Freedom of Information Act to find out who donated $20 to the Obama campaign under names like Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, and Adolf Hitler without entering a valid American address?